Template talk:Featured
Where to place Redge, I think this message should be placed on the article page itself (just like all other messages), not that article's talk page. Otherwise a good idea to 'clean up' a bit, thanks. :) -- Cid Highwind 12:25, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :If you were going to place it on the page itself, I advice on the bottom of the page, so that it is not annoying for the readers. That's why placing it on the Talk page might be a good idea? Ottens 12:44, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) Virtually all important messages are placed on the top of the article page - a small two-line note in a box can't be that annoying, can it? Placing it on the talk page doesn't make much sense in my opinion - all these messages are meant to inform casual readers about the status of that article, while the idea of a talk page is to discuss the article in detail (= for interested contributors) - those two functions don't mix that well... -- Cid Highwind 12:52, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :Yes, but I just said I'' would rather place it on the bottom of the article, as it only informs you that it's a Featured Article, and doesn't add anything useful to the ''content itself. Ottens 13:05, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::I moved this discussion from my talk page to 10F, so everyone can give their thoughts. I'll just leave the messages as they are now untill we have rached a conclusion here. :::I think the Talk page would be better suited. You don't want to interupt readers with info that isn't relevant to the article itself. Alternatively, bottom of page will do as well. -- Redge 13:30, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) :::: I think that the talk page is the best place. It doesn't clutter up the main article itself, but it still keeps the information available. After all, the list of featured articles itself is linked to from the main page... -- Dan Carlson 15:27, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) ::::: I'd rather have it on the actual page, top or bottom, than the Talk page. The article's status should have attention called to it in som way, and putting a notice on a different page doesn't really do that. --Steve 20:06, 30 Jun 2004 (CEST) Well, let's talk about the purpose of that message... what is the target audience (so to speak) of it? If it is the group of Readers/Users it has to be placed on the page itself - I guess those guys rarely read talk pages. If it is the group of Contributors/Editors, it doesn't have to be the article page, but in that case, the message might be completely unnecessary - if I have something to contribute to an article, I'm not really interested in its status. Summary: Use it on the article page, or don't use it at all :) -- Cid Highwind 16:55, 1 Jul 2004 (CEST) ::::::I think he bottom of the article page, or the top of the talk page are the two most sensible choices, listed in the order i prefer them. we don't need much more disruption than this will offer--Captain Mike K. Bartel :::Bottom it is then? -- Redge 20:49, 21 Jul 2004 (CEST) :::Archived. -- Redge 19:07, 5 Aug 2004 (CEST) ::::::: Re-relocated. Not sure where it came from, originally, but this is the best place for it now... --Alan 19:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC) Update to the wording Based on Cid's edits this morning to update the wording to better work with reconfirmations, I think it might prudent to change the template to better incorporate links to the revision(s) as well as a link to the blurb displayed on the main page. We could also keep the original featured revision link as well with what I'm thinking of, but the wording would need to be completely reworked. - 13:15, January 5, 2012 (UTC) :Actually, that was the idea I started out with, but then went for a smaller change to be less destructive to the template. ;) If there's support for a template that has a complete optional set of parameters for the last reconfirmation in addition to that of the first featuring, we can work that out, too, of course. -- Cid Highwind 13:31, January 5, 2012 (UTC) I'll put something together on one of my subpages so we have a better idea. - 21:30, January 5, 2012 (UTC) ...and done: User:Archduk3/Template. - 22:55, January 5, 2012 (UTC) By the way, what are the "historical reasons" for having the calls be listed as optional? - 22:51, January 9, 2012 (UTC) :The parameters had to be optional at the time of implementing them because none of the existing template calls defined them. They no longer need to be optional, so that statement could be removed from the documentation. -- Cid Highwind 23:13, January 9, 2012 (UTC)